Democratic development in the modern world: modeling paths of political changes

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru

Introduction

The concept of democracy received a lot of attention in the recent years, especially since the post-communist world presented a new challenge to the world order. Researchers have focused on a variety of issues affecting the newly developing post-socialist countries and the ways in which the changed new world influenced the developed democracies. The issues that received the most attention have focused on the so-called “fourth wave” of democratization, especially its structural sources, development of institutions, and finding new theoretical explanations for the unpredictable changes in the global political environment.

In the meantime, the question that remained of utmost importance was the issue of differentiation of the concept of democracy itself. As Collier and Levittsky have stated, the pursuit of democracy definition had two contradictory goals. On the one hand, it was important to find an appropriate definition that would have captured the true meaning of the development of a society based on values deemed “democratic” by the developed world. On the other, it was also important to avoid construct contamination, in which the concept would have acquired the meaning not originally intended (also known as “conceptual stretching”), resulting in multiple definitions and subtypes of the concept itself. These goals, of course, were somewhat contradictory, yet they generated a prolific stream of research that produced important theoretical insights. First, multiple definitions resulted in multiple measures of various dimensions of the democracy concept. Second, numerous attempts at understanding the structure of the concept have resulted in creation of several testable typologies of democracies, which can now be used to generate additional research questions in pursuit of a deeper theoretical understanding of one of the most important concepts in political science.

One such typology was created by Collier and Levitsky and received a lot of attention in the literature over the years. It established definitional and conceptual bencmarks in research on democratization, and through empirical testing, allowed to unearth a multitude of important insights. For example, a number of studies have focused on the economic origins of democracy, human rights, impact of political regime on the environment, health, labor markets, energy markets (oil and gas) and many others. Another group of studies have looked at the relationships between the different concepts within the typology, providing insights into the structure of democracy. Additional studies have looked at multiple individual countries, both developing and developed, with democratic processes acting as both antecedents and concequences of a variety of important political and social concepts.

However, to the best of my knowledge, most of these studies have been done prior to the “fourth wave” of democratization, or the advent of political movement known as the “Arab spring.” Both conceptually and socially different from prior similar political movements, the “Arab spring” has put into question our understanding of the concept of democracy, and the new political changes that affect the world order under the influence of social network environment. In that light, this study aims to re-examine the Collier and Levitsky typology in the “new world”, affected by the “fourth wave” of democratization, under the changed world conditions. It appears that different countries follow different trajectories in their development of democratic societies, but the true nature of these trajectories remains unclear. In addition, political science as a field still lags behind some other social sciences in terms of methodological rigor: most studies are peformed using ordinary linear regression, which is hardly appropriate for testing of complex typologies. These limitations serve as a fruitful ground for the new study, aimed at testing the existing typology under new conditions, with an appropriate rigor provided by structural equation modeling.

Based on existing theoretical development in the field, the problem of this study is formulated as follows: currently, there is lack of a clear understanding of the process of democratization, with a multitude of factors involved and lack of theoretical understanding of the society's transformation from one form to another. As a result, we currently do not understand how the process of democratization affects the formation of different political regimes.

Research question

The research question of this study aims to address the reasons behind the different formal and informal democratization practices in different societies, even in presence of very similar political institutions.

Study subject

The process of democratization past the “fourth wave” of democratization.

Study object

The trajectories of democratic development in different nations.

Study goals

The overarching goal of the study is determining of the main trajectories of democratic development with different models of democracy.

Objectives of the study include:

Conceptualization of various approaches to definition of democracy;

Utilization of a complex methodological approach to study design, which allows using structural equation modeling for simultaneous testing of multiple facets of democracy;

Determination of factors, which impact the democratic process;

Determination of the main trajectories of democratic development.

This paper is structured as follows. To address the above objectives, I first perform the literature review on the existing definitions and develop the theoretical approach to the study design based on Collier and Levitsky's typology. Second, I describe the method used to address the research question, outline the results and findings, and provide conclusions and additional key research directions for further study.

1. Literature Review and Theoretical Development

The process of democratization is becoming more complex, as the changing world order is providing additional complexities for the societies' development. In particular, the process of democratic development is influenced by political, socio-cultural, and economic factors, an impact of which has been previously shown and has already been confirmed even in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. Less obviously, factors such as environmental pollution and health of citizens also have an impact in the modern society. Moreover, with the passage of time it also becomes obvious that the model of liberal democracy ceases to be universal and does not always win over other systems. It can also be noted that in recent decades the transition from undemocratic forms of government has been individualized, which does not allow to create a universal logic for the transformation of regimes. But in the light of these changes, the Collier and Levitsky's approach to typology of democracy serves as an excellent starting point for evaluating the concept under the changing world order.

Definition of democracy.

In modern political discourse, in scientific circles, and even in the media, the word "democracy" is one of the most common. The system of social structure (democracy), the foundations of which were created back in the ancient times, has significantly influenced the development of many countries and the whole world. In current literature the notions of "democracy," "human rights and freedoms," "universal equality" attempt to claim universality. The modern democratic state is understood as a legal state reflecting many ideas of classical liberalism, in which the principle of separation of powers is implemented in practice and the rights and freedoms of citizens are protected. This is the reason why currently in the literature, modern democracy is called “liberal democracy.”

However, in practice, it faces the impossibility of an unambiguous interpretation. It cannot be overlooked that the original concept of democracy was substantially transformed by the creation of various models, theories, and the empirical difficulties that researchers faced in the course of practical application. Based on many political events (which can be combined with one concept of a modern democratic wave), we can be convinced of the inconsistency of the idea of the universality of democracy and the possibility of its construction throughout the world.

In order to develop an empirical model of testing the process of democratic development and understand its antecendents and consequences, a high level of conceptual clarity is needed regarding the content of the term "democracy." Unfortunately, the theoretical and empirical literature on democracy is voluminous and contradictory, resulting in conceptual confusion.

D. Collier and St. Levitsky were able to detect more than 550 "subspecies" of democracy. Some of these conditional subspecies simply point to specific institutional traits, or types, full of democracy, but many designate "stripped down" forms of democracy, which overlap in a variety of ways.

A. Przeworski wrote that democratization is internationalization, a willingness to focus on world achievements; S. Huntington spoke of democratization as a global process. The American political scientists distinguished four "waves of democratization" and emphasized the possibility of the return of undemocratic tendencies. A. Melville noted that democratization is the result of certain decisions and strategic choices. S. Lipset hypothesized the impact of a high level of economic development on the process of democratization. Such researchers as G. Almond and S. Verbra identified cultural-value conditions as the basic factor of democratization.

The ancestor of the minimalist definitions is I. Schumpeter, who defined democracy as a system of "achieving political solutions, in which individuals acquire the power to decide through competition for the voices of the people". Modern minimalist concepts of democracy (electoral democracy) recognize the need for some set of civil liberties necessary for competition and participation to have real meaning. At the same time, as a rule, they do not pay much attention to the alleged basic freedoms and do not try to include them in the number of real criteria for democracy.

The concept of liberal democracy uses more stringent criteria for determining the political regime in the country. According to this concept, a certain percentage of countries that were previously considered democratic can no longer be qualified as such. R.L. Sklar singles out the terms of liberal democracy: 1) The real power belongs to elected officials and the persons appointed by them; 2) The executive power is constitutionally limited, and its accountability is provided by other government institutions; 3) In the liberal democracy, not only the results of the elections are not predetermined in advance, but in the conduct of the latter, the share of the opposition vote is great, and there is also a real possibility of periodically alternating the party of power; 4) Cultural, ethnic, confessional minorities, as well as traditionally discriminated groups of the majority are not forbidden to express their own interests in the political process; 5) In addition to parties and periodic elections, there are many other permanent channels of expression and representation of the interests and values of citizens; 6) In addition to freedom of association and pluralism, there are alternative sources of information; 7) Individuals have fundamental freedoms, including freedom of belief, opinion, discussion, speech, publication, assembly, demonstration and petition; 8) All citizens are politically equal; 9) The power of law protects citizens from arbitrary arrest, expulsion, terror, torture and unjustified interference in their private life on the part of not only the state, but also organized anti-state forces.

Today, most ratings, in particular the Freedom House, rely on the concept of democracy in the liberal sense. Intermediate concepts meaningfully situated between the electoral and the liberal include among the criteria for democracy basic civil liberties and freedom of association, but still allow serious restrictions on the rights of citizens. The decisive difference is that in the first case, civil liberties are taken into account mainly to the extent that they provide meaningful electoral competition and participation.

History of democracy.

A. Pshevorsky, S. Huntington, A. Melville, S. Lipset, G. Almond, S. Verba and other researchers contributed greatly to the development of the understanding of the democracy concept and the process of democratization. Each of them distinguishes various aspects in the process of democratization. However, it does not mean that democratization is conceptualized similarly by these scholars, and the evolution of democracy as a process is not always clear.

The concept of democracy appeared more than two and a half thousand years ago, but changed its content multiple times. Since Aristotelian times, democracy has been viewed as a form of government, a regime that affirms the sovereignty of the people, and governs the state on its behalf. The impulse for a democratic way of government, according to R. Dahl, comes from the "logic of equality," when members of the community tend to work out solutions together. The Greeks introduced the term “democracy;” it is translated as "the rule of the people," and, according to the researchers, was used by the Aristocrats as an epithet that expressed disdain for the commoners who managed to push them away from the government.

At the same time in ancient Rome, a republic appeared with its system of consuls, the senate and people's tribunes. Initially, the right to run the republic belonged only to patricians or aristocrats. "However, in the course of the development of the society and after a bitter struggle and common people (plebs), they have achieved the same right for themselves. As in Athens, the right of participation was granted only to men, and this restriction persisted in all subsequent types of democracies and republics until the twentieth century".

Unstable democracy in ancient Greece was constantly subjected to serious trials. The people did not feel protected by the law, and the feeling often changed under the influence of people's leaders, who tried to overthrow the democratic system. The instability of ancient Greek's democracy was explained by the lack of a system of checks and balances that protected the minority from the majority and vice versa. The main value of ancient Greek democracy was the striving for the common good. Civil virtues were to be supported by the power of law, the constitution of the city and the social order that makes justice achievable.

The Romans understood democracy differently; they recognized the self-worth of the law and the need to protect the rights and interests of every citizen. In other words, they understood democracy as the rule of law.

A new wave of the revival of democracy was the creation of political institutions in Northern Europe, which subsequently led to the creation of a system combining local democracy and a popularly elected parliament at the highest level. These political institutions have become prototypes of parliaments, including elected representatives, and popularly elected local governments (or, in the modern interpretation, local government bodies), which were subordinate to the national government. The essence of political transformations was that free citizens and aristocrats were able to take a direct part in local meetings. Regional and national assemblies of representatives elected in full or in part were added to them.

A significant influence on the further formation of democratic traditions was exerted by the Reformation, which put forward the fundamental political ideas of equality before God's judgment and the highest truth. During this period, the foundations of representative government were established, which later more modified for form and content. In the traditional process of negotiations between the king and the supreme feudal lords in the second half of the 17th century, one more level was included - between members of parties in the parliament and their supporting representatives of society outside parliament. Democratic practices, having emerged as negotiations to limit the power of the king within the elites of society, were initially institutionalized at the elite level, and then expanded in breadth, "turning the entire society into a complex system of institutionalized negotiations.”

A vivid example of the conflict path of democracy was the Great French Revolution, which resulted in the collapse of the society's elite and attempts to build state power from below, "out of nothing." The new politicians, deprived of the traditional legitimacy of the experience of state administration accumulated by generations, tried to fill this gap by building attractive ideological constructions based on "democratic mythology," which they believed could ensure the legitimization of power in new historical conditions. This historical paradox is universal for revolutions: losing circles of power resulted in general religious laws that affect violence. The transitional crisis led to social upheavals, often associated with terror, the cause of which was the conflict between power and society. The "democratic myth" replaced the organic growth of democratic practices, and "freedom" began to be considered as the possibility of unlimited violence against those who were associated with the ruinous regime. "Democratic myth" was unable to create a real democracy in society.

Modern democracies, inheriting many traditions of historical democracies, receive new essential and procedural traits. They are based on the political ideas of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment.

The epoch of the New Time is characterized by the beginning of the modernization process, which is understood as political, economic and social changes that transfer society from the traditional to the modern state. Prerequisites for political changes (democratization) were the processes of the emergence of the sovereignty of political systems and the constitutionality of their organization.

In this period, sovereign states emerge, presupposing in their territory a relatively homogeneous regime of power relations and fixing a monopoly on the use of violence. And, as J. Beschler points out, "as opposed to the state, there is a civil society that claims non-violent contractual self-organization in accordance with the norms of natural law and human freedoms.”

Democracy today and waves of democratization.

S. Huntington introduced the notion of a “wave of democratization” in the early 1990s of the last century. He identified three waves of democratization as transitions of a group of countries from non-democratic regimes to democratic ones. The wave period is characterized by the superiority of countries that have embarked on a democratic path, before countries whose development goes in the opposite direction. In addition, these countries are experiencing identical processes of liberalization and democratization of political systems. The reverse processes, or “waves of recoiling from democratization,” are periods of movement of states in the opposite direction of democracy, in which a large group of countries is dominated by non-democratic tendencies characterized by the establishment or expansion of the sphere of influence of authoritarian or totalitarian modes.

Since the beginning of the 19th century and until the end of the 20h century S. Huntington defines three long waves of democratization and the same waves of "pullback." In his opinion, the first wave of democratization covers almost 100-year period (1828-1926), and the wave of recoil - 20 years (1922-1942), the second wave is more short-lived (1943-1962), the wave of pullback - 18 years (1958-1975). The third wave began in 1974 (democratic transformations in Portugal, from 1975 in Greece, etc.). The value of S. Huntington's research is that he characterized the causes of democratization waves, their conditions and consequences, and also determined their periodization.

S. Huntington said that there are 5 reasons for initiating a "wave of democratization:" 1) the problem of the legitimacy of authoritarian governments and their inability to cope with military defeats and economic failures; 2) the problem of the "burgeoning" economy of many countries, the improvement of the level of education; 3) the problem of religious institutions that began to oppose authoritarian governments; 4) the problem of human rights and the creation of supranational organizations; 5) the problem of strengthening international relations and the democratization of other countries. Accordingly, he identified the reasons for "kickbacks." He lists the reasons for the rollback of democratization as: the weakness of democratic values in elites and society; economic recession and crises leading to social conflicts and the popularity of the ideas of authoritarian rule; social and economic polarization of society; external influence, etc.

According to F. Schmitter, four waves of democratization passed during the same period: the first one begins with the revolutions of 1848, after which by 1852 many countries (France, Germany, Austria-Hungary) returned to autocratic forms of government; the second after the First World War, when new states emerged in Eastern and Central Europe, in a number of which democratic forms of government were established; the third wave began after the Second World War, when a large group of countries appeared on the world map, which were gradually phased out of colonial and semi-colonial dependence; The fourth one begins with the military coup in 1974 in Portugal, which led to democratic reforms.

Schmitter's classification was not widely accepted as today some researchers define the fourth wave of democratization, which began in early 2010, as the wave primarily associated with the Arab spring. Researchers note that this wave is connected not only with economic factors, but also with social factors (growth of social capital, growth of media significance in the life of citizens, the spread of internet among people). But why, in the opinion of researchers, the wave began right now? This question can be answered in the following way. For example, in Tunisia the blogosphere provided space for citizens for a political dialogue about corruption and potential political changes. In Egypt, people used Facebook as the central knot of discontent with politics. So apparently, the existence of online social networks and media are contributing to the development of a society in a way that is yet to be understood.

Thus, the analysis of historical stages in the formation of states shows the wave-like development of democracy: the periods of increases in democracy are replaced by periods of decline and recoil. Each wave of democratization was caused by a new state of society. It did not destroy it, but led to a development of civil society, especially to the growth of the number of parties and social movements, which in turn led to new democratic tides. At the same time, the resistance of conservative forces led to pullbacks. Historical experience shows that the closer to the present time the changes were, the more powerful the democratization waves became, and the deeper and more fundamental was their impact on the world.

The cyclical and waviness characteristic of political processes are especially evident in the development of democracy. The analysis of the history of the development of democracy in the world makes it possible to conclude that over time such waves become more frequent and increasingly change the world and society. If, at the beginning of the history of mankind connected with democracy, such waves have occurred throughout the centuries, then in the modern world, waves and recoils alternate with a periodicity of ten years.

Theoretical expectations.

In this light, the Collier and Levitsky's typology presents an interesting challenge to the political scientists. It allows looking at the changes through the empirical lens, evaluating both the concept of democracy and the typology of democratic state formation.

democratization political authoritarian

Figure 1. Collier and Levitsky's typology of democracy

This process is, in large part, exploratory, because, to the best of our knowledge, no previous work in the post-2010 era has been done to examine the ways in which democratic trajectories are formed. Their typology, demonstrated in the figure above, attempts to integrate the multiple definitions, conceptualizations, and dimensionality of democracy, and provides a guide for the empirical model in this study. We do not formulate the specific hypotheses, but testing the typology, we largely explore the multiple relationships between various constructs previously shown to have an impact on the development of democracy. We hypothesize that existing measures of democracy will load on the five factors described by Collier and Levitsky, and the Associated Meanings in their typology will form the basis for the exogenous (independent) factors that affect development of the democracy.

Method.

This section contains information on the conceptualization of the variables, sample, data collection procedures, and analytical instruments used to obtain the necessary results.

Sample.

We used The Quality of Government Time-Series Data, which approximately consists of 2100 variables from more than 100 data sources, in particular The Baysian Corruption Index, Global Militarization Index, Classification of Political Regimes, Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, Environment Treaties and Recourses Indicators, Freedom House, Global State Democracy, Polity IV, The Economic Effects of Constitutions, The Worldwide Governance Indicators, etc. Our database contains information on 194 countries. For this study we utilized the 2013 dataset, because it is the first year in the post-2010 world where there was a sharp increase of countries labeled as “Not Free countries in Freedom House rank. Apparently, some changes due to Arab Spring, and the resulting crackdowns by authoritative governments may have reduced the level of freedom that societies have previously enjoined.

Empirical testing was performed using structural equation modeling using Lisrel 8.8 as software, with a matrix of item correlations and a vector of standard deviations as inputs. In the process of theoretical development, eight factors were determined to be present in the data (and further tested using confirmatory factor analysis): Environment, Health, Labour Market, Politics, Gas, Oil, Education, and Economy.

In the group of the Environment, the variables were hypothesized to be directly related to the environmental situation in the country. This group included items such as carbon dioxide pollution and unsafe sanitary conditions. This factor describs the state of the environment, ecosystems and materials, the impact of human beings on the environment, and environmental protection. The Health group included predictors that affect the health of citizens, the quality of drinking water, the index of human development, access to energy supply. We take these variables, because based on previous literature, we have determined that political organization of societies may be an important upstream determinant of population health. The Labor market factor includes the number of able-bodied citizens of different ages and the level of participation of the population in labor. The number of personnel of the armed forces, the number of seats in the lower house of parliament belongs to the Politics factor. In turn, the Gas and Oil factors include indicators that cover descriptions of different energy sources (production, consumption and trade), such as oil and gas products of each country. The public economy sector is divided into two factors: the group of predictors that relates to GDP, and a group of variables that relates to the Ginny coefficient. The social sphere is divided into several factors such as Education, which includes predictors describing the level of education of citizens, and the use of the Internet and television. The latter two indicators are especially important given the influence of social media in the Arab Spring.

2. Independent and Dependent Variables

As independent variables, we use groups of variables combined into factors (modeling approach is described in the later section). Each factor had several items, which were loaded according to their theoretical meaning using confirmatory factor analysis, to account for the deficiencies in previous research, which measured these variables on single-item scales.

In our database, the first digit means the year. As already mentioned above, this paper used a set of variables from “The Quality of Government” database. These variables serve as indicators for exogenous (independent) and endogenous (dependent) factors in our model.

Indicators for independent factors.

In this database, "carb" (Carbon) was chosen as independent variables. The carbon Footprint, which represents the carbon dioxide emissions from consuming fossil fuels in addition to the embodied carbon in imported goods. The region of forestland required to sequester these carbon emissions represents the carbon Footprint component. Currently, the carbon Footprint is the largest portion segment of mankind's Footprint. This is a numeric variable that takes values from 0.02 to 11.53. We also selected the "ef" (Total Ecofootprint) variable; Global Hectares (GHA) calculates this variable per person. This is a numeric variable that takes values from 0.48 to 15.33. The variable “ascat” (Unsafe Sanitation) is a numeric and takes values from 0 to 100. This predictor means exposure to unsafe sanitation and population lacking access to sanitation. A "eh" (Environmental Health) prediction index is calculated from three indices: Health Impacts, Air Quality and Water and Sanitation. This is a numeric variable that takes values from 21.74 to 99.05.

The variable “ehwater” (Water and Sanitation) is numeric and takes values from 24.75 to 100. Index is calculated from two variables: Unsafe Sanitation and Drinking Water Quality. We also selected a variable “epi” (Environmental Performance Index), which consists of two indicies: Environmental Health and Ecosystem Vitality. This prediction takes value from 27.42 to 90.94.

A "ev" (Ecosystem Vitality) prediction is selected too. This index calculated from six indices: Water Resources, Agriculture, Forests, Fisheries, Biodiversity and Habitat, and Climate and Energy. This is a numeric variable that takes values from 14.98 to 90.28. The variable “watsup” (Access to Drinking Water) is numeric and takes values from 0 to 100. This variable measures the percent of population lacking access to drinking water.

The selected variable “hdi” (Human Development Index) is a numeric variable that takes values from 0.3 to 0.94. The HDI was developed to emphasize that individuals and their abilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of an average achievement in key measurements of human development. The HDI simplifies and captures only a part of what human development entails. It does not reflect on disparities, neediness, human security, empowerment, etc.

The variables “acel” (Access to electricity), “acelr,” and “acelu” measures the percentage of population with access to electricity. Electrification data were collected from industry, national surveys and international sources. The suffix “r” means rural population, and suffix “u” means urban population. These are numeric variables. The lowest percentage of the population with access to electricity is 0.7; the highest percentage is 100.

The variables “acis” (Improved sanitation facilities), “acisr,” and “acisu” mean the percentage of population using improved sanitation facilities. Improved sanitation facilities, for example include flush/pour flush (to piped sewer system, septic tank, pit latrine), ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine. These are numeric variables. The lowest percentage of the population with access to electricity is 3.2; the highest percentage is 100.

The variables “aciw” (Improved water source) and “aciwr” measure the percentage of population using improved drinking water source. The improved drinking water source includes piped water on premises (piped household water connection located inside the user's dwelling, plot or yard), and other improved drinking water sources (public taps or standpipes, tube wells or boreholes, protected dug wells, protected springs, and rainwater collection). These are numeric variables; the lowest percentage of the population with access to electricity is 8.8; the highest percentage is 100.

A "co2" (CO2 emissions) prediction is the variable that counts metric tons of CO2 emissions per capita. Carbon dioxide discharges are those stemming from the burning of fossil fuels and the manufacture of cement. They include carbon dioxide created during consumption of solid, liquid, and gas fuels and gas flaring. This is a numeric variable that takes values from 0.02 to 53.19.

The variables “prfilo” (Employment to population ratio, 15+, female), “prilo” (Employment to population ratio, 15+, total), “prmilo” (Employment to population ratio, 15+, male), “pryfilo” (Employment to population ratio, ages 15-24, female), “pryilo” (Employment to population ratio, ages 15-24, total), “prymilo” (Employment to population ratio, ages 15-24, male) measure the employment to population ratio as the proportion of a country's population that is employed. These are numeric variables; the lowest percentage of the population with access to electricity is 2.18; the highest percentage is 95.72.

The variables “lfpfilo15” (Labor force participation rate, 15+, female), “lfpilo15” (Labor force participation rate, 15+, total), “lfpmilo15” (Labor force participation rate, 15+, male), “lfpyfilo” (Labor force participation rate 15-24, female), “lfpyilo” (Labor force participation rate, 15-24, total), “lfpymilo” (Labor force participation rate, 15-24, male) mean the proportion of the population ages 15 and older or 15-24 years old that is economically active: all people who supply labor for the production of goods and services during a specified period. These are numeric variables that are measured in percent. The lowest percentage of the population with access to electricity is 7.09; the highest percentage is 95.72.

The variables “l_s” (Number of Seats (Lower House)) and “l_w” (Number of Women (Lower House)) mean number of seats in Lower House. In this case, we are considering the number of women, because for the democratic change of institutions it is necessary to represent the largest number of segments of the population. These are numeric variables. The minimum is 0; and the maximum is 2,980.

The variable “afpt” (Armed forces personnel, total) is a numeric and that takes values from 0 to 2,993,000. Military staff for this situation are dynamic obligation military faculty, including paramilitary forces, if the training, organization, equipment, and control, they can be used to support or replace regular military forces.

A "trade" (trade, % of GDP) prediction is the sum of exports and imports of goods and services measured as a share of gross domestic product. This is a numeric variable that takes values from 0.18 to 398.75.

The variable “shhc” (Share of household consumption at current PPPs) is numeric and that takes values from 0.03 to 1.24. This variable means share of household consumption at current public-private partnership.

We also selected a variable “gas_exp” (Gas exports, billion cubic feet per year), which takes value from 0 to 8,232.99; variables “gas_prod” (Gas production, million barrels oil equiv), and “oil_prod” (Oil production in metric tons). These data provide the best available information about the volume and value of oil and petroleum gas production in all countries. Since these are the world prices for a single (benchmark) type of oil/gas, they only approximate the actual price - which varies by country according to the quality, the terms of agreements, the planning of the transactions, and other factors. These figures do not tell how much governments or companies consume - just the estimated volume and value of production and collected revenues. The lowest value for gas and for oil is 0; the highest value for gas is 5,605.12 and for oil is 500,681,408.

A "broadb" (Fixed broadband subscriptions, per 100 people) prediction is a numeric variable that takes values from 0 to 44.6. Fixed broadband subscriptions refer to fixed subscriptions to high-speed access to the public Internet (a TCP/IP connection), at downstream speeds equivalent to, or more prominent than, 256 kbit/s. It includes both residential subscriptions and subscriptions for organizations.

The variables “ea1524f” (Educational Attainment, 15-24 years, Feale)), “a ea1524m,” “ea2534f,” “ea2534f,” “ea2534m,” “ea3544f,” “ea3544f,” “ea3544m,” “ea4554f,” “ea4554m,” “ea5564f,” “ea5564m,” “ea65f,” and “ea65m” mean average years of education. The Figures mean the age, and suffix “f” or “m” means gender. These are numeric variables. The minimum is 0.03; and the maximum is 15.51.

The variable “internet” (Individuals using the Internet, % of population) is a numeric and that takes values from 0 to 96.55. Internet users are individuals who have used the Internet in the last 3 months. The Internet can be used via a computer, mobile phone, personal digital assistant, games machine, digital TV etc.

The variable “sg” (Social Globalization) is numeric and takes values from 12.54 to 92.87. Social globalization is measured by three categories of indicators. The first is personal contacts, such as telephone traffic and tourism. The second is information flows, e.g. number of Internet users. The third is cultural proximity, e.g. trade in books and number of IKEA warehouses per capita. Standard deviations and mean values for independent variables are presented in the table in Appendix 1.

Indicators for dependent factors.

A number of items were used to form the factors for dependent variables. The change in political institutions, whether institutions become more democratic when different factors change, was one such indicator. We also used a set of variables such as “aor” (Associational and Organizational Rights). The variable set assesses the freedom of assembly, demonstrations and open public discussion; the liberty for nongovernmental organization, and the freedom for trade unions, peasant organizations and other professional and private organizations. Countries are graded between 0 (worst) and 12 (best).

Another set includes the “cl” (Civil Liberties); civil liberties provide for the freedoms of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy without interference from the state. The additional specific list of rights considered varies over the years. Countries are graded between 1 (most free) and 7 (least free).

Another variable is the “ep” (Electoral Process). The variable measures to what extent the national legislative representatives and the national chief authority are elected through free and fair elections. Countries are graded between 0 (worst) and 12 (best).

Our database also contains a variable “feb” (Freedom of Expression and Belief). Several measures assess the freedom and independence of the media; the freedom of religious groups to follow their religion and express themselves; the academic freedom; and also the ability of the people to engage in private (political) discussions without concern of harassment or arrest by the authorities. Countries are graded between 0 (worst) and 16 (best).

The next variable is “fog” (Functioning of Government). The variable examines to what extent the freely elected head of government and a national legislative representative determine the policies of the government; whether the government is free from pervasive corruption; and whether the government is responsible to the voters between elections and operates with openness and transparency. Countries are graded between 0 (worst) and 12 (best).

We also use two dependent variables such as “polity2” and “ipolity2” (Level of Democracy, Freedom House, Polity/Imputed Polity). Scale ranges from 0-10 where 0 is least democratic and 10 most democratic. It is average of Freedom House components.

Another variable is “pair” (Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights). The variable evaluates the extent of state control over travel, choice of residence, employment or institution of higher education; the right of voters property and establish non-public businesses. Countries are graded between 0 (worst) and 16 (best).

The next one variable is “ppp” (Political Pluralism and Participation). This variable encompasses an examination of the right of the people to freely organize in political parties; the existence of an opposition with a realistic possibility to increase its support. Countries are graded between 0 (worst) and 16 (best).

One more dependent variable is “pr” (Political Rights). Political rights enable people to participate freely in the political process, including the right to vote freely for distinct alternatives in legitimate elections, compete for public office, join political parties and organizations. Countries are graded between 1 (worst) and 7 (best).

The next one variable is “rol” (Rule of Law). The variable measures the independence of the judiciary; the extent to which rule of law prevails in civil and criminal matters; the existence of direct civil control over the police; the protection from political terror. Countries are graded between 0 (worst) and 16 (best).

We can use two variables “autoc” (Institutionalized Autocracy) and “democ” (Institutionalized Democracy). Both indicators are an additive eleven-point scale (0-10). The operational indicators are derived from coding of the competitiveness of political participation, the openness and competitiveness of executive recruitment and constraints on the chief executive.

Our database contains a variable “fragment” (Polity Fragmentation). This variable codes the operational existence of a separate polity, or polities, comprising substantial territory and population within the recognized borders of the state and over which the coded polity exercises no effective authority (effective authority may be participatory or coercive). Countries are graded between 0 (no overt fragmentation) and 3 (serious fragmentation).

One more dependent variable is “parcomp” (The Competitiveness of Participation). The competitiveness of participation refers to the extent to which alternative preferences for policy and leadership can be pursued in the political arena. Countries are graded between 0 (Not applicable) and 5 (Competitive).

Another variable may be “xconst” (Executive Constraints). Operationally, this variable refers to the extent of institutionalized constraints on the decision-making powers of chief executives, whether individuals or collectivities. Any “account- ability groups” may impose such limitations. In Western democracies these are usually legislatures. Countries are graded between 1 (Unlimited Authority) and 7 (Executive Parity or Subordination).

The next one variable is “xrcomp” (Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment). Competitiveness refers to “the extent that prevailing modes of advancement give subordinates equal opportunities to become superordinates (Gurr 1974, p.1483)” Countries are graded between 1 (Unlimited Authority) and 7 (Executive Parity or Subordination). Countries are graded between 0 (Not applicable) and 3 (Election).

Our database contains a variable “xrreg” (Regulation of Chief Executive Recruitment). Regulation refers to the extent to which a polity has institutionalized procedures for transferring executive power. Three categories are used to differentiate the extent of institutionalization: 0 (Unregulated) and 3 (Regulated).

The next variable is “rsf_pfi” (Press Freedom Index). The Press Freedom index measures the amount of freedom journalists and the media have in each country and the efforts made by governments to see that press freedom is respected. It isn't an indicator of the quality of a country's media. Countries are graded between 0 (best) and 100 (worst).

Another variable is “dl_delib” (Deliberative component index?). The index is formed by point estimates drawn from a Bayesian factor analysis model including the following indicators: reasoned justification, common good justification, respect for counterarguments, range of consultation, and engaged society. The heist point in the database is 0.99, and the lowest point is 0.02.

One more dependent variable is “edcompthick?” (Electoral component index?). The electoral component index is operationalized as a chain defined by its weakest link of freedom of association, suffrage, clean elections, and elected executive. The heist point in the database is 0.94, and the lowest point is 0.005.

Our database contains a variable “egal” (Egalitarian component index?). Averaging the following indices forms this index: equal protection index and equal distribution of resources. The heist point in the database is 0.97, and the lowest point is 0.09.

The next one variable is “gender” (Women political empowerment index). Taking the average of women's civil liberties index, women's civil society participation index, and women's political participation index forms the index. The heist point in the database is 0.96, and the lowest point is 0.27.

Another variable may be “liberal” (Liberal component index?). This index is formed by averaging the following indices: equality be- fore the law and individual liberties, judicial constraints on the executive, and legislative constraints on the executive. The heist point in the database is 0.98, and the lowest point is 0.04.

And the last variable is “partip” (Participatory component index?). This index is formed by averaging the following indices: civil society participation, direct popular vote, elected local government power, and elected regional government power. The heist point in the database is 0.71, and the lowest point is 0.04.

Control variables.

As we know the change in political institutions is largely influenced by economic growth. Some researchers such as L. Diamond, S. Huntington showed the impact of these variables on democractic changes. Therefore, we also included these groups of variables in our model. Consider GDP and Ginny coefficient, calculated by different methods and different organizations, so that the results of the model are not affected by the methods of calculating predictors. Our database contains 19 variables, which in various ways calculate the country's gross wealth, including exports, imports, GDP, etc. These variables are “fce” (Final Consumption Expenditure), “gdp” (Real GDP), “gdppc” (GDP per Capita, Current Prices in US dollar), “gse” (Goods and Services - Export), “gsi” (Goods and Services - Import), “gdpcur” (GDP per capita, current US dollar), “gdpgr” (GDP per capita growth), “gnippcur” (GNI per capita, PPP, current international dollar), “gnipcur” (GNI, PPP, current international dollar), “cs” (Capital stock at constant 2005 national prices), “plcf” (Price level of capital formation), “plgc” (Price level of government consumption), “plhc” (Price level of household consumption), “rgdp” (Real GDP at constant 2011 national prices), “gcf” (Gross Capital Formation), “gdpppcur” (GDP per capita, PPP, current international dollar), “gdppcur” (GDP, PPP,current international dollar), “gniatlcur” (GNI, Atlas method, current US dollar), “gnicur” (GNI, current US dollar).

We also include a set of variables associated with fertility, mortality, and the average expected standard of living. When studying the issues of democratization, scholars often include these additional control variables in the models (for example, A. Melville and D. Stukal). Therefore, we also added this set of variables to the database. These variables are «birth» (Birth rate, crude, per 1,000 people) , «death» (Death rate, crude, per 1,000 people), «drbs» (Deaths, Both sexes, Rate per 100,000), «drf» (Deaths, Female, Rate per 100,000), «drm» (Deaths, Male, Rate per 100,000), «lebs0001» (Life Expectancy, Both sexes), «lef0001» (Life Expectancy, Female), «lem0001» (Life Expectancy, Male), «pop» (Population), «fertility» (Fertility rate, total, births per woman), «lifexp» (Life expectancy in age < 1year, total), «lifexpf» (Life expectancy in age < 1year, female), «lrmd» (Lifetime risk of maternal death, %), «mortinf» (Mortality rate, infant, per 1,000 live births), «mortnn» (Mortality rate, neonatal, per 1,000 live births), «mortu5» (Mortality rate, under-5, per 1,000 live births), «pop14» (Population ages 0-14, % of total), «pop1564» (Population ages 15-64, % of total), «pop65» (Population ages 65+, % of total), «popden» (Population density, people per sq. km of land area), «popf» (Population, female, % of total), «popgr» (Population growth, annual %), «poprul» (Rural population, % of total population), «poprulgr» (Rural population growth, annual %), «popurb» (Urban population, % of total population), «popurbagr» (Urban population growth, annual %).

Crude death rate indicates the number of deaths occurring during the year, per 1,000 population estimated at midyear. Subtracting the crude death rate from the crude birth rate provides the rate of natural increase, which is equal to the rate of population change in the absence of migration.